[1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0001068]: Binding to a system-assigned port.
The following issue has a resolution that has been APPLIED. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068 == Reported By:dannyniu Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 Issue ID: 1068 Category: Base Definitions and Headers Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: Applied Name: DannyNiu/NJF Organization: User Reference: Section:Base Definition, Headers Page Number:307 Line Number:10260 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text:https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c5902 Resolution: Accepted As Marked Fixed in Version: == Date Submitted: 2016-08-22 03:14 UTC Last Modified: 2022-08-05 09:31 UTC == Summary:Binding to a system-assigned port. == Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu New Issue 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Name => DannyNiu/NJF 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Section => Base Definition, Headers 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Page Number => 307 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Line Number => 10260 2016-08-22 16:45 shware_systems Note Added: 0003354 2017-02-19 05:28 dannyniu Note Added: 0003561 2017-02-19 16:18 shware_systems Note Added: 0003562 2022-07-21 15:36 geoffclare Note Added: 0005902 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Interp Status => --- 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Final Accepted Text => https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c5902 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Status New => Resolved 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Resolution Open => Accepted As Marked 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Tag Attached: issue8 2022-07-21 16:37 shware_systems Note Added: 0005904 2022-07-21 16:43 geoffclare Note Added: 0005905 2022-07-22 08:21 kreNote Added: 0005906 2022-08-05 09:31 geoffclare Status Resolved => Applied ==
Re: [1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0001068]: Binding to a system-assigned port.
I'm sincerely sorry for my mailer's (Microsoft Hotmail's) URL protector. I'll take note of that in the future.
Re: [1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0001068]: Binding to a system-assigned port.
Date:Fri, 22 Jul 2022 09:20:55 +0800 From:"DannyNiu via austin-group-l at The Open Group" Message-ID: | Might I ask how did we resolve this? Just for the sake of record. | Or the next minute will contain these info? It probably will, but the messag you're replying to contained a URL to the accepted text ... but as the URLs in the message you included in this reply are mangled beyond recognition, I can only assume that some protection from dangerous spam/phishing messages in your e-mail system is stopping you getting them. The URL was, with the https colon slash slash stuff stripped off, so that should not be a problem (except you will need to add that back): austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c5902 But it is more or less (standards wording applied) exactly what you requested be done, bind to port 0, and the system picks a port for you (which is what systems actually do). kre
[1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0001068]: Binding to a system-assigned port.
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068 == Reported By:dannyniu Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 Issue ID: 1068 Category: Base Definitions and Headers Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: Resolved Name: DannyNiu/NJF Organization: User Reference: Section:Base Definition, Headers Page Number:307 Line Number:10260 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text:https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c5902 Resolution: Accepted As Marked Fixed in Version: == Date Submitted: 2016-08-22 03:14 UTC Last Modified: 2022-07-22 08:21 UTC == Summary:Binding to a system-assigned port. == -- (0005906) kre (reporter) - 2022-07-22 08:21 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c5906 -- Re https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c5904 What Geoff said in https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c5905, plus, the IETF does not write standards for OS interfaces to the protocols they design, that's someone else's business, like ours for POSIX. When the IETF decides to define some use for port number 0, in either UDP or TCP, beyond what is defined now, and that is for some use which a normal (as opposed to special system dependent) application might want to use, we can apply for special dispensation to the purple unicorn emperor of the soviet states of america to permit us to add a new option which will allow applications to actually bind to port 0. In the meantime, what this is adding is what systems actually implement, which is what the standard is supposed to say. Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu New Issue 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Name => DannyNiu/NJF 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Section => Base Definition, Headers 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Page Number => 307 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Line Number => 10260 2016-08-22 16:45 shware_systems Note Added: 0003354 2017-02-19 05:28 dannyniu Note Added: 0003561 2017-02-19 16:18 shware_systems Note Added: 0003562 2022-07-21 15:36 geoffclare Note Added: 0005902 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Interp Status => --- 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Final Accepted Text => https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c5902 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Status New => Resolved 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Resolution Open => Accepted As Marked 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Tag Attached: issue8 2022-07-21 16:37 shware_systems Note Added: 0005904 2022-07-21 16:43 geoffclare Note Added: 0005905 2022-07-22 08:21 kreNote Added: 0005906 ==
Re: [1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0001068]: Binding to a system-assigned port.
I’m glad and surprised that this didn’t take so long that it didn’t get decided until issue 9. Might I ask how did we resolve this? Just for the sake of record. Or the next minute will contain these info? > 2022-07-22 00:43:43，Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open > Group 写道： > > > A NOTE has been added to this issue. > == > https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faustingroupbugs.net%2Fview.php%3Fid%3D1068data=05%7C01%7C%7Ce32d26a6bff744c2b5c008da6b386570%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637940187234545347%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=9m6oqfnpXN3lWBJ%2FrTwloL70mWsJR1W82satY0eiaUU%3Dreserved=0 > > == > Reported By:dannyniu > Assigned To: > == > Project:1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 > Issue ID: 1068 > Category: Base Definitions and Headers > Type: Omission > Severity: Objection > Priority: normal > Status: Resolved > Name: DannyNiu/NJF > Organization: > User Reference: > Section:Base Definition, Headers > Page Number:307 > Line Number:10260 > Interp Status: --- > Final Accepted Text: > https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faustingroupbugs.net%2Fview.php%3Fid%3D1068%23c5902data=05%7C01%7C%7Ce32d26a6bff744c2b5c008da6b386570%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637940187234545347%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=ksT1GcEb18zdBdGz28xYcUV%2BOguTwboy6iXLOmNbBs4%3Dreserved=0 > > Resolution: Accepted As Marked > Fixed in Version: > == > Date Submitted: 2016-08-22 03:14 UTC > Last Modified: 2022-07-21 16:43 UTC > == > Summary:Binding to a system-assigned port. > == > > -- > (0005905) geoffclare (manager) - 2022-07-21 16:43 > https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faustingroupbugs.net%2Fview.php%3Fid%3D1068%23c5905data=05%7C01%7C%7Ce32d26a6bff744c2b5c008da6b386570%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637940187234545347%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=FS%2B6ci46qz1xHszcY0JMzfZNPF4BFFHh7MLxITau0zQ%3Dreserved=0 > > -- > Re > https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faustingroupbugs.net%2Fview.php%3Fid%3D1068%23c5904data=05%7C01%7C%7Ce32d26a6bff744c2b5c008da6b386570%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637940187234545347%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=iruh5rJmkCpf6N4Z5q8J5Ka565HH9ZmEFL3eMsfzgPs%3Dreserved=0 > You are talking about the > port number contained in UDP > packets. There is no conflict. When sin_port=0 is used to bind an ephemeral > UDP port, it is the (non-zero) ephemeral port number that is contained in > the UDP packets. > > Issue History > Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange > == > 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu New Issue > 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Name => DannyNiu/NJF > 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Section => Base Definition, > Headers > 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Page Number => 307 > 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Line Number => 10260 > 2016-08-22 16:45 shware_systems Note Added: 0003354 > 2017-02-19 05:28 dannyniu Note Added: 0003561 > 2017-02-19 16:18 shware_systems Note Added: 0003562 > 2022-07-21 15:36 geoffclare Note Added: 0005902 > 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Interp Status => --- > 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Final Accepted Text => >
[1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0001068]: Binding to a system-assigned port.
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068 == Reported By:dannyniu Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 Issue ID: 1068 Category: Base Definitions and Headers Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: Resolved Name: DannyNiu/NJF Organization: User Reference: Section:Base Definition, Headers Page Number:307 Line Number:10260 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text:https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c5902 Resolution: Accepted As Marked Fixed in Version: == Date Submitted: 2016-08-22 03:14 UTC Last Modified: 2022-07-21 16:43 UTC == Summary:Binding to a system-assigned port. == -- (0005905) geoffclare (manager) - 2022-07-21 16:43 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c5905 -- Re https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c5904 You are talking about the port number contained in UDP packets. There is no conflict. When sin_port=0 is used to bind an ephemeral UDP port, it is the (non-zero) ephemeral port number that is contained in the UDP packets. Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu New Issue 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Name => DannyNiu/NJF 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Section => Base Definition, Headers 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Page Number => 307 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Line Number => 10260 2016-08-22 16:45 shware_systems Note Added: 0003354 2017-02-19 05:28 dannyniu Note Added: 0003561 2017-02-19 16:18 shware_systems Note Added: 0003562 2022-07-21 15:36 geoffclare Note Added: 0005902 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Interp Status => --- 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Final Accepted Text => https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c5902 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Status New => Resolved 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Resolution Open => Accepted As Marked 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Tag Attached: issue8 2022-07-21 16:37 shware_systems Note Added: 0005904 2022-07-21 16:43 geoffclare Note Added: 0005905 ==
[1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0001068]: Binding to a system-assigned port.
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068 == Reported By:dannyniu Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 Issue ID: 1068 Category: Base Definitions and Headers Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: Resolved Name: DannyNiu/NJF Organization: User Reference: Section:Base Definition, Headers Page Number:307 Line Number:10260 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text:https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c5902 Resolution: Accepted As Marked Fixed in Version: == Date Submitted: 2016-08-22 03:14 UTC Last Modified: 2022-07-21 16:37 UTC == Summary:Binding to a system-assigned port. == -- (0005904) shware_systems (reporter) - 2022-07-21 16:37 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c5904 -- UDP Source Ports require a different functionality than above when it's set to zero. As the above text does not account for this, or IETF may define other conflicting usages at any time for various protocols I cannot see making the above a requirement on all implementations. Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu New Issue 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Name => DannyNiu/NJF 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Section => Base Definition, Headers 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Page Number => 307 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Line Number => 10260 2016-08-22 16:45 shware_systems Note Added: 0003354 2017-02-19 05:28 dannyniu Note Added: 0003561 2017-02-19 16:18 shware_systems Note Added: 0003562 2022-07-21 15:36 geoffclare Note Added: 0005902 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Interp Status => --- 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Final Accepted Text => https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c5902 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Status New => Resolved 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Resolution Open => Accepted As Marked 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Tag Attached: issue8 2022-07-21 16:37 shware_systems Note Added: 0005904 ==
[1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0001068]: Binding to a system-assigned port.
The following issue has been RESOLVED. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068 == Reported By:dannyniu Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 Issue ID: 1068 Category: Base Definitions and Headers Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: Resolved Name: DannyNiu/NJF Organization: User Reference: Section:Base Definition, Headers Page Number:307 Line Number:10260 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text:https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c5902 Resolution: Accepted As Marked Fixed in Version: == Date Submitted: 2016-08-22 03:14 UTC Last Modified: 2022-07-21 15:37 UTC == Summary:Binding to a system-assigned port. == Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu New Issue 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Name => DannyNiu/NJF 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Section => Base Definition, Headers 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Page Number => 307 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Line Number => 10260 2016-08-22 16:45 shware_systems Note Added: 0003354 2017-02-19 05:28 dannyniu Note Added: 0003561 2017-02-19 16:18 shware_systems Note Added: 0003562 2022-07-21 15:36 geoffclare Note Added: 0005902 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Interp Status => --- 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Final Accepted Text => https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c5902 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Status New => Resolved 2022-07-21 15:37 geoffclare Resolution Open => Accepted As Marked ==
[1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0001068]: Binding to a system-assigned port.
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068 == Reported By:dannyniu Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 Issue ID: 1068 Category: Base Definitions and Headers Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: New Name: DannyNiu/NJF Organization: User Reference: Section:Base Definition, Headers Page Number:307 Line Number:10260 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: == Date Submitted: 2016-08-22 03:14 UTC Last Modified: 2022-07-21 15:36 UTC == Summary:Binding to a system-assigned port. == -- (0005902) geoffclare (manager) - 2022-07-21 15:36 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c5902 -- On D2.1 page 298 line 10373 section , after:The sin_port and sin_addr members shall be in network byte order.add:If the sin_port value passed to bind() is zero, the port number bound to the socket shall be one chosen by the implementation from an implementation-defined port range to produce an unused local address. On D2.1 page 298 line 10393 section , after:The sin6_port and sin6_addr members shall be in network byte order.add:If the sin6_port value passed to bind() is zero, the port number bound to the socket shall be one chosen by the implementation from an implementation-defined port range to produce an unused local address. On D2.1 page 301 line 10510 section , add bind() to SEE ALSO Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu New Issue 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Name => DannyNiu/NJF 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Section => Base Definition, Headers 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Page Number => 307 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Line Number => 10260 2016-08-22 16:45 shware_systems Note Added: 0003354 2017-02-19 05:28 dannyniu Note Added: 0003561 2017-02-19 16:18 shware_systems Note Added: 0003562 2022-07-21 15:36 geoffclare Note Added: 0005902 ==
[1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0001068]: Binding to a system-assigned port.
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068 == Reported By:dannyniu Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 Issue ID: 1068 Category: Base Definitions and Headers Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: New Name: DannyNiu/NJF Organization: User Reference: Section:Base Definition, Headers Page Number:307 Line Number:10260 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: == Date Submitted: 2016-08-22 03:14 UTC Last Modified: 2017-02-19 16:18 UTC == Summary:Binding to a system-assigned port. == -- (0003562) shware_systems (reporter) - 2017-02-19 16:18 http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c3562 -- That teaching practice is faulty; in that any platform where it applies has overloaded the IETF reserved value, and subsequent protocol-specific usages, by arbitrarily assigning this specific function to it. It is therefore imho a platform-specific, not standard, practice. The place to propose this is more in an IETF RFC as explicit currently unused port values, with my suggested expansions. As some ports are already reserved for similar use it shouldn't be considered too controversial, I imagine, for STD/BCP status as an amendment of RFC 6335. This way POSIX and all other platforms can defer to that, going forward, and stay compatible with each other. Existing systems and applications that might break due to the change at least can reuse most of their code; for some it may be as simple as a single line header patch and recompile. Changing get/setsockopt() as suggested doesn't require an RFC, as it doesn't lock down any value assignments, but would be more complex for an application to make use of in a safe manner. It would also be limited to use across a known LAN setup of POSIX conforming systems, as across a WAN or the WWW it couldn't be guaranteed addressable platforms are compatible with all aspects of how the new functionality may be implemented. Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu New Issue 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Name => DannyNiu/NJF 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Section => Base Definition, Headers 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Page Number => 307 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Line Number => 10260 2016-08-22 16:45 shware_systems Note Added: 0003354 2017-02-19 05:28 dannyniu Note Added: 0003561 2017-02-19 16:18 shware_systems Note Added: 0003562 ==
[1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0001068]: Binding to a system-assigned port.
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068 == Reported By:dannyniu Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 Issue ID: 1068 Category: Base Definitions and Headers Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: New Name: DannyNiu/NJF Organization: User Reference: Section:Base Definition, Headers Page Number:307 Line Number:10260 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: == Date Submitted: 2016-08-22 03:14 UTC Last Modified: 2017-02-19 05:28 UTC == Summary:Binding to a system-assigned port. == -- (0003561) dannyniu (reporter) - 2017-02-19 05:28 http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1068#c3561 -- The biggest reason I propose to add it to the standard, is because it's been taught as standard practice. Here quotes "UNIX Network Programming", by W. Richard Stevens et.al. Section 4.4 bind Function. ..., but it is rare for a TCP server to let the kernel choose an ephemeral port, since servers are known by their well-known port. Exception to this rule are Remote Procedure Call (RPC) servers. ... If we specify a port number of 0, the kernel chooses an ephemeral port when bind is called. ... Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu New Issue 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Name => DannyNiu/NJF 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Section => Base Definition, Headers 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Page Number => 307 2016-08-22 03:14 dannyniu Line Number => 10260 2016-08-22 16:45 shware_systems Note Added: 0003354 2017-02-19 05:28 dannyniu Note Added: 0003561 ==
